Post a response to this discussion thread
Nicky wrote:
"grundel, I do not know if the case you are refering to is from Canton, Ohio where a hair braider was caught braiding hair without a cosmotology licence."
Cosmotology? I've checked three dictionaries, and its not in any of them. Its clear from the context that it is related to cosmetics, rather than cosmology. Purists will also recognise that both cosmetics (make-up) and cosmos (the universe) are both derived from the same Greek root. But still, this is another example of the habit of dressing up common occupations or tasks with fancy names in order to make them seem more glamarous or difficult.
Still, I wonder about Ohio where it requires hairdressers to be licenced. Whatever for? I guess this is like shooting canaries in a birdcage, but isn't this a case of government "protection" going to ridiculous lengths?
In Australia, we have a government Office of Consumer Affairs with the power to rule on disputes between consumers and suppliers of products or services, and if need be levy fines against suppliers. This is more than sufficent to protect the public against most shonky traders. It is only in serious occupations (where lives may be in risk, such as doctors and engineers, or very costly damage such as from plumbing, or where children are involved such as with teachers) that the government steps in before hand and insists on licencing practitioners.
Surely a bad hair cut isn't such a disaster that you need a special government office to regulate the industry?
Post a response to this discussion thread